Can an Emergency Excuse Unsafe Driving?

Drivers sometimes have only seconds to react when another vehicle does something unexpected. In that moment, the safest option may not be obvious. But if your split-second decision results in a traffic violation, will the courts excuse it because you were trying to avoid a collision?

A British Columbia Supreme Court decision involving an emergency manoeuvre on a busy four-lane highway provides some useful guidance. At first glance, you might think the case was about whether it was legal to drive in the painted median. It wasn't. The real issue was whether the driver's actions were those of a reasonably prudent driver faced with a sudden emergency.

The Incident

In R. v. Gray, the driver was travelling northbound in the left lane of a four-lane highway. Traffic was heavy. According to the driver's evidence, a vehicle in the right lane suddenly moved into the left lane immediately ahead of him.

Rather than brake, he steered left into the painted median separating the northbound and southbound lanes. He continued through the median past the other vehicles before returning to the roadway. A police officer travelling in the opposite direction witnessed the manoeuvre and issued three violation tickets.

The driver admitted driving in the median but argued that he had done so to avoid a collision.

The Legal Question

The trial court found the driver guilty of driving without reasonable consideration for others, contrary to section 144(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act. He appealed that decision to the British Columbia Supreme Court.

The appeal was not really about whether driving in the painted median was legal.

Instead, the court considered whether the driver's actions met the standard expected of a reasonably prudent driver in the same circumstances.

Driving without reasonable consideration for others is a strict liability offence. Once the Crown proves that the manner of driving fell below the required standard, it is up to the driver to establish that they exercised due diligence by taking all reasonable care.

The Court's Decision

An interesting aspect of the decision is that the courts did not reject the driver's evidence simply because it supported his defence. Accepting that the lane change occurred did not end the analysis. The question was whether a reasonably prudent driver would have responded in the same way.

The appeal judge found that the trial judge accepted the driver's evidence that another vehicle suddenly moved into the left lane ahead of him.

The trial judge concluded that a reasonably prudent driver had other choices available, including slowing and applying the brakes.

On appeal, the driver argued that braking could have caused a rear-end collision because vehicles were following closely behind him. However, the appeal judge found that this explanation was never fully developed in the evidence. The driver asserted that braking was unsafe but did not adequately explain why it was not a reasonable option.

Because the driver failed to establish that he had exercised due diligence, the appeal was dismissed.

The Defensive Driving Lesson

This case offers an important lesson for every driver.

When an emergency develops, we naturally focus on the last decision that was made. Collision investigators often ask a different question:

What options were available before the emergency developed?

Every emergency manoeuvre should prompt two questions:

1. What was the safest choice at that moment?
2. What earlier driving decisions determined which choices were available?

The first question may determine whether a collision is avoided. The second helps us become better drivers by identifying how the situation developed in the first place.

Defensive driving is about preserving options. Maintaining a safe following distance, looking well ahead in traffic, anticipating the actions of other drivers and adjusting speed to conditions all increase the time available to respond without resorting to extreme manoeuvres.

Of course, not every emergency can be avoided. Other drivers sometimes do unexpected things that leave little time to react.

However, when a driver later argues that an unusual manoeuvre was the only safe choice, the court will consider whether a reasonably prudent driver had another reasonable alternative.

What Drivers Should Remember

Courts recognize that drivers sometimes face sudden emergencies.

However, the law judges those decisions objectively, not simply by what the driver believed at the time.

If another reasonable course of action was available, an emergency alone may not excuse driving that falls below the standard expected by the Motor Vehicle Act.

The law may judge the last decision you made. Defensive driving is about making sure you have better choices available before that decision ever becomes necessary.